Cause of 'Accidents'

[Farmer Alfalfa]

"albert fish" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> I think I remember reading in new scientist that statistically speaking, 'common' sense was wrong
> about 50% of the time.

Remembering William Hague's "common sense revolution", it's clearly much *less* then 50%!

F A

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <2Cb*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>Also, there's an important difference between crimes that will increase if not suppressed - like
>speeding - and crimes that will not - like reckless cycling. Responsible cyclists are not
>responsible primarily out of fear of the law; they are responsible out of fear of being killed
>or injured.

You are, of course, entitled to say that _you_ are responsible primarily out of fear of being killed
or injured and not out of fear of the law but I don't think you are entitled to generalise this to
all "responsible cyclists" (as one of which I count myself).

The objective of the law isn't confined to protecting people against being killed or injured but is
an important factor in ensuring that people are considerate towards each other. Anyone who spends
any time out on the road will regularly see instances of cyclists infringing the law and, although
not endangering anyone in any real sense, inconveniencing other road and pavement users.

There seems to be a growing lack of respect for the law and an increasingly prevalent attitude along
the lines of, "I'm not harming anyone else, so it's OK". This applies as much to pavement cyclists
as to speeding motorists. As with all 'victimless crimes' there are victims in this case - the
people inconvenienced by the action and the mutual respect we all owe each other.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:K9v*[email protected], David Damerell
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> On the other hand, the minute the police had infinite resources, society would collapse as such an
> unprecedented proportion of it landed in prison, where presumably we would not have bicycles to
> ride. After everyone outside's starved, the police will be the only ones left with bicycles.

The best way to get infinite police resources is for everyone to become a policeman and then they
can police themselves. Of course then, in the words of the old saying "Quis cusdodiet ipsos
custodes", which as a Cambridge man you will instantly understand.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Paul Rudin]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> In news:K9v*[email protected], David Damerell
> <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> > On the other hand, the minute the police had infinite resources, society would collapse as such
> > an unprecedented proportion of it landed in prison, where presumably we would not have bicycles
> > to ride. After everyone outside's starved, the police will be the only ones left with bicycles.
>
> The best way to get infinite police resources is for everyone to become a policeman and then they
> can police themselves.

On a related note - there's currently talk of "community police officers" or some such. I don't
really know what this is about - is it some kind of police TA analogue? If so maybe cyclists should
sign up so that they can ticket cars parked in cycle lanes and the like...

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>In news:K9v*[email protected], David Damerell
><[email protected]> typed:
>>
>> On the other hand, the minute the police had infinite resources, society would collapse as such
>> an unprecedented proportion of it landed in prison, where presumably we would not have bicycles
>> to ride. After everyone outside's starved, the police will be the only ones left with bicycles.
>
>The best way to get infinite police resources is for everyone to become a policeman and then they
>can police themselves. Of course then, in the words of the old saying "Quis cusdodiet ipsos
>custodes", which as a Cambridge man you will instantly understand.
>
>Tony
>
He might be forgiven for not understanding instantly. The saying is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes".
I wonder if typographical errors were as common in Roman days? Probably not, being as most people
were illiterate.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Toby Barrett]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> He might be forgiven for not understanding instantly. The saying is "Quis custodiet ipsos
> custodes". I wonder if typographical errors were as common in Roman days? Probably not, being as
> most people were illiterate.

I remember reading about Roman grafitti as found in Pompeii. The standard of the grammar was pretty
poor and the content didn't get much higher than "Octavia is a ****". So nothing changes.

Toby

PS. Went to a "bog standard" comprehensive followed by Hull University, but still recognise a bit
of Tacitus.

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

 

[Toby Barrett]

Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> PS. Went to a "bog standard" comprehensive followed by Hull University, but still recognise a bit
> of Tacitus.

Showing my lack of education after all. It's kindly been pointed out that the quotation is from
Juvenal, not Tacitus.

I had been labouring under that misapprehension for years. I studied Tacitus, but not Juvenal, and
picked up the quotation round about the same time.

Toby

"Memoria minuitur nisi eam exerceas" (the memory grows weak if not exercised).

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

 

[Keith]

John B wrote ...
> An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
> cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

<snip>

> Can anyone point me towards any correct figures?

John Forester has worked assiduously on just this subject for years. His book 'Effective Cycling" is
a mine of useful data and commonsense (mainly USA data)

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/bikebooks.htm

> Additionally he quotes "a town" (unnamed) with off-road cycle routes where "cyclists who hit
> cyclists that needed hospital treatment was almost 500 in one year".

John Forester also advocates cyclists reclaim the roads for this reason (among others).

Keith

 

[Disgruntled Goa]

On Thu, 15 May 2003 09:40:57 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes".

Who eats custard with custard creams?

--
DG

Bah!

 

[David Damerell]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> writes
>>Also, there's an important difference between crimes that will increase if not suppressed - like
>>speeding - and crimes that will not - like reckless cycling. Responsible cyclists are not
>>responsible primarily out of fear of the law; they are responsible out of fear of being killed or
>>injured.
>You are, of course, entitled to say that _you_ are responsible primarily out of fear of being
>killed or injured and not out of fear of the law but I don't think you are entitled to generalise
>this to all "responsible cyclists" (as one of which I count myself).

Are you seriously saying you fear law enforcement against cyclists, which is practically
non-existent, more than death or injury, which is certainly not non-existent?

I observe also that on urc the justification advanced for illegal maneuvers tends to be "it is safe"
- not "the police will never catch me."

>The objective of the law isn't confined to protecting people against being killed or injured but is
>an important factor in ensuring that people are considerate towards each other.

This is true, but I don't see that it is directly relevant.

>There seems to be a growing lack of respect for the law

Hang on; I can respect the law without fearing it.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], Michael MacClancy
<[email protected]> typed:
>>
> He might be forgiven for not understanding instantly. The saying is "Quis custodiet ipsos
> custodes". I wonder if typographical errors were as common in Roman days? Probably not, being as
> most people were illiterate.

Mea culpa

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], Toby Barrett <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Showing my lack of education after all. It's kindly been pointed out that the quotation is from
> Juvenal, not Tacitus.
>
> I had been labouring under that misapprehension for years. I studied Tacitus, but not Juvenal, and
> picked up the quotation round about the same time.
>
> Toby
>
> "Memoria minuitur nisi eam exerceas" (the memory grows weak if not exercised).

Bl**dy Hell. I've converted urc into Radio 4!

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Toby Barrett]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in news:ba02a6$nqveu$2@ID- 178940.news.dfncis.de:

> Bl**dy Hell. I've converted urc into Radio 4!
>
> Tony
>

What makes you think urc-ers don't listen to Radio 4? I've never seen the need for any other radio
station myself. (Except when Morning Service is on on a Sunday morning - that sends me seeking out
anything else.)

Toby

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <-LD*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> writes
>>>Also, there's an important difference between crimes that will increase if not suppressed - like
>>>speeding - and crimes that will not - like reckless cycling. Responsible cyclists are not
>>>responsible primarily out of fear of the law; they are responsible out of fear of being killed or
>>>injured.
>>You are, of course, entitled to say that _you_ are responsible primarily out of fear of being
>>killed or injured and not out of fear of the law but I don't think you are entitled to generalise
>>this to all "responsible cyclists" (as one of which I count myself).
>
>Are you seriously saying you fear law enforcement against cyclists, which is practically
>non-existent, more than death or injury, which is certainly not non-existent?
>

You are twisting things. You said, "cyclists are not responsible out of fear of the law". You
didn't mention law enforcement. The fact that law enforcement against cyclists is practically
non-existent is irrelevant. I obey the law even though I realise that it might not be enforced. If
more people did this life would be more harmonious. "Fear" was a word you introduced into the
discussion and I thought you were using it in its normal colloquial sense and not literally (I
suppose you will now say that I shouldn't infer too much if anything from your writing). I don't
literally fear the law but I do obey it. Neither do I particularly _fear_ death or injury, although
I am trying to avoid both.

>I observe also that on urc the justification advanced for illegal maneuvers tends to be "it is
>safe" - not "the police will never catch me."

The only possible justification might be "it is safer than not breaking the law" and this would be
difficult to prove. The justification "it is safe" neglects elements such as courtesy to others and
also questions the relevance of the law itself. Saying "it is safe" is what Paul Smith does all the
time and I believe that most sensible people can see straight through his arguments.
>
>>The objective of the law isn't confined to protecting people against being killed or injured but
>>is an important factor in ensuring that people are considerate towards each other.
>
>This is true, but I don't see that it is directly relevant.

What, there is no relevance in being courteous and considerate towards other people?
>
>>There seems to be a growing lack of respect for the law
>
>Hang on; I can respect the law without fearing it.

I never suggested that you couldn't.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Sabineuk]

Michael MacClancy [email protected] said:

[re 'safe law-breaking']
>The justification "it is safe" neglects elements such as courtesy to others and also questions the
>relevance of the law itself.

Sometimes minor law-breaking can be done with the utmost of courtesy to others. As for questioning
the relevance, I can think of several sets of traffic lights where the sequence is such that a red
light is utterly, utterly pointless and can be jumped perfectly safely, without risk to self or
inconvenience to others. In this situation, I have little problem treating it as a give way.

>Saying "it is safe" is what Paul Smith does all the time and I believe that most sensible people
>can see straight through his arguments.

The problem is that driving in excess of the posted limit is not inherently dangerous; there are
many situations where an appropriate speed for the conditions is quite different to the limit. I
have no quarrel with PS over this.

However, another of his arguments is that the current style of speed enforcement leads directly to
more traffic incidents: I find this a wee bit unconvincing, to say the least ...

John

 

[David Damerell]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> writes
>>Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>You are, of course, entitled to say that _you_ are responsible primarily out of fear of being
>>>killed or injured and not out of fear of the law but I don't think you are entitled to generalise
>>>this to all "responsible cyclists" (as one of which I count myself).
>>Are you seriously saying you fear law enforcement against cyclists, which is practically
>>non-existent, more than death or injury, which is certainly not non-existent?
>You are twisting things. You said, "cyclists are not responsible out of fear of the law". You
>didn't mention law enforcement.

Er, why would you fear the law if not because it might be enforced? The law in and of itself can't
do anything to you.

[And the whole conversation is about law enforcement.]

>irrelevant. I obey the law even though I realise that it might not be enforced.

That is respect for the law, not fear of the law. This is not simply a pedantic distinction, because
my argument is that slackening law enforcement of cycling offences will not cause them to increase.
Clearly if you obey the law because you respect it, slacker law enforcement would not cause you to
break it; so your own attitude supports my underlying argument.

>"Fear" was a word you introduced into the discussion and I thought you were using it in its normal
>colloquial sense and not literally

There's some colloquial sense of "fear" that doesn't mean "not wanting the adverse consequences"?

>>I observe also that on urc the justification advanced for illegal maneuvers tends to be "it is
>>safe" - not "the police will never catch me."
>The only possible justification might be "it is safer than not breaking the law" and this would be
>difficult to prove.

You mean the only _reasonable_ justification. Clearly any justification is possible, up to and
including "the pixies told me to". Again this is not a pedantic distinction, because the reason I
mention this is to support my contention that sensible cyclists fear physical danger more than they
fear the law.

>>>The objective of the law isn't confined to protecting people against being killed or injured but
>>>is an important factor in ensuring that people are considerate towards each other.
>>This is true, but I don't see that it is directly relevant.
>What, there is no relevance in being courteous and considerate towards other people?

To the question under discussion - to wit, whether law enforcement resources are best spent on
cyclists, motorists, firearms, etc. - no.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <1iw*[email protected]>, David Damerell
<[email protected]> writes
>There's some colloquial sense of "fear" that doesn't mean "not wanting the adverse consequences"?

One of the definitions in my dictionary for 'fear' is 'respect'. I think that this is its normally
understood sense in 'fear of the law'. If you appropriately replace 'fear' with 'respect' in our
discussion you'll get a rather different sense from what you thought you were writing and reading.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Nick Kew]

In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

> of the old saying "Quis cusdodiet ipsos custodes", which as a Cambridge man you will instantly
> understand.

Good grief! Have they introduced compulsory latin since my time there?

Or is this just an assumption about the background of Cambridge people? Once upon a time, there were
grants so even those of us from a bog-standard nil-latine-dictat comprehensive could go there on
that rather quaint and old-fashioned criterion of academic merit.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], Nick Kew <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Good grief! Have they introduced compulsory latin since my time there?
>
> Or is this just an assumption about the background of Cambridge people?
>

Unless its changed recently many of the formal ceremonies of the University are carried out in
Latin. One has to assume the members understand Latin otherwise they would have to be dumb to sit
there listening to incomprehensible Latin speeches when they could be in English

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[David Damerell]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> writes
>>There's some colloquial sense of "fear" that doesn't mean "not wanting the adverse consequences"?
>One of the definitions in my dictionary for 'fear' is 'respect'. I think that this is its normally
>understood sense in 'fear of the law'.

I don't. However, that is not really something we can determine overall; and the underlying point,
that most responsible cyclists cycle legally because of worries about being injured rather than
worries about law enforcement.

Out of interest, are you going to continue to disagree with anything I post as a matter of policy?
And, if so, will you continue to lie about what I posted if it suits you? Because if you are going
to do that I'd like to killfile you now and save a little effort.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?